Legal Opinion

Matlock v. Todd

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1862PublishedCited by 33 opinions

APPEAL from tbe Hendricks Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtPerkins, J.

Matlock sued Todd on a note for a fraction' over eight hundred dollars. Todd answered, that the note was obtained by fraud, in this, that it was given for the consideration, in part, of the purchase of the interest of Matlock in a certain partnership; that the purchaser, Todd, relied upon' the representations of Matlock, as to its value, etc., and that *132the representations were false, etc., and that said Todd, immediately upon discovering their falsity, offered to rescind, etc.

Reply in denial. Jury trial; judgment for the defendant.

A motion was made for a new trial. It was asked on two…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gatling v. NewellIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
  2. Kirby v. CannonIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
  3. Ball v. CarleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1853

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Plymale v. UprightIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Lindley v. KelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Robinson v. GlassIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. WalserIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Grover Irrigation & Land Co. v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir & Irrigation Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1913

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API